pledgin allegiance is not enough...

[Harold F. Schiffman]

Francis, your bringing up this topic stimulates me to remind folks of one
of the ideas behind the establishment of the Consortium for Language
Policy and Planning, which was to sponsor summer workshops for educators,
legislators, journalists and others to learn about language policy issues,
as a way to provide them with ammunition when the Unzes of the world try
to set language policy by uninformed initiatives etc.

I haven't been successful to locating funds for this yet, but I still have
my hopes...

See our "Mission Statement":

	"The objectives of the Consortium are to enhance the quality of
	research, teaching, and information dissemination on the subject of
	language policy formation and study; to strengthen similarly-oriented
	programs of its member institutions, and to foster dialogue on the process
	of language policy formation in situations of ethnic and linguistic
	conflict in the modern world."

and:

	"In particular, the Consortium for Language Policy and Planning
	will have as a primary focus projects that are educational and
	informational--the Consortium will sponsor workshops, summer institutes,
	informational and short-courses designed to bring to public discussion
	issues affecting schools and other multilingual sites of contention in
	contemporary America and other parts of the world."


HS

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Francis M. Hult wrote:

> Yes, David, you state my past posting about right.  At the time I
> was thinking of the big picture of how we as researchers/scholars can be
> active and strategic agents of social and political change when it comes to
> multilingual education.  I was thinking about how easily (at least
> apparently) public opinion sways towards supporting anti-bi-/multi-lingual
> education legislation.  I was also thinking about the reality of the US
> political process which is just as much (if not more so) about lobbyists
> and money as it is about truth and justice.  I am not sure that the best
> way to make our voices heard is to write letters against specific
> legislation and/or individual newspaper articles (though I certainly think
> every bit helps).  Do we need a political 'wing' for our collective
> professional organizations that will do mega-fundraising to lobby legislators
> to get them in our pockets instead of someone else's?  If other special
> interests have them, why not us--we could have a 'language lobby'.  But we
> need to change the linguistic culture too not just the laws, though the two
> should go hand in hand.  How can we do this in a strategic way?  Do we need
> our own propaganda people?  How should we 'play the system'?
>
> Francis
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 11:47:50AM -0800, Aurolyn Luykx wrote:
> > I agree with David in principle, I just figured if the
> > bill IS taken up next year, that would be the time to
> > address it; in the meantime, we should try to educate
> > the publicate on lg. issues more generally. Sometimes
> > I think legislators introduce these bills again and
> > again just to keep bilingual ed advocates busy, while
> > the deep-pocketed Unzes of this world are off
> > advancing on more significant (but less visible)
> > fronts.
> > Aurolyn
> >
> > --- David Johnson <davidcasselsjohnson at hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dr. Luykx, You may be right but as Rep. Livvy
> > > Floren, "ranking member on the
> > > Government Administration and Elections Committee"
> > > said, they will probably
> > > take up the bill next year and the reason they have
> > > avoided it is because of
> > > time, NOT because of "any ideological opposition".
> > > As long as
> > > multilingualism is seen as a problem and not a
> > > resource/right, I doubt
> > > anti-bilingual legislation will ever really be dead
> > > in the water in the U.S.
> > > It seems that once interest is piqued, resources are
> > > mobilized and the
> > > anti-bilingual camp can effectively convince enough
> > > of the politicians and
> > > the public that bi-ed is hurting kids. I think the
> > > policy discursive
> > > environment and linguistic culture affect language
> > > policy
> > > creation/implementation and Piscopo is now helping
> > > to shape the language
> > > policy discursive context. His comments might not be
> > > indicative of any
> > > future action and the bill may never see the light
> > > of day, but it still
> > > might not be totally useless? I dunno. It's
> > > certainly debatable.
> > >
> > > >From: Aurolyn Luykx <aurolynluykx at yahoo.com>
> > > >Reply-To: lgpolicy-list at ccat.sas.upenn.edu
> > > >To: lgpolicy-list at ccat.sas.upenn.edu
> > > >Subject: Re: pledgin allegiance is not enough...
> > > >Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 09:11:20 -0800 (PST)
> > > >
> > > >Personally I wouldn't spend time on it, given that
> > > the
> > > >bill seems to be dead in the water, and the article
> > > >already gave some space to a dissenting argument
> > > >(Trinidad's), though (admittedly) not a particularl
> > > >effective one.
> > > >See the attached for a particularly blood-boiling
> > > >example of anti-bilingual boneheadedness...
> > > >Aurolyn
> > > >
> > > >--- David Johnson <davidcasselsjohnson at hotmail.com>
> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In a previous email, Dr. Schiffman suggested
> > > that
> > > > > responses be developed for
> > > > > Gregg Easterbrook's article in the New Republic.
> > > In
> > > > > a previous lgpolicy
> > > > > strain, a conversation was generated by another
> > > list
> > > > > member, Francis Hult,
> > > > > about linguistic and educational scholars
> > > lacking
> > > > > access to the public
> > > > > relations and/or political machinery that might
> > > help
> > > > > engender more
> > > > > multilingual language policies in the U.S. and
> > > stop
> > > > > initiatives such as
> > > > > anti-bilingual education laws. (Is that close
> > > > > Francis? If I'm getting it
> > > > > wrong let me know...)
> > > > >
> > > > > Following Professor Schiffman's example, I would
> > > > > like to suggest that brief
> > > > > letters be written in response to Rep. John
> > > > > Piscopo's comments in the
> > > > > article below. He makes some clearly erroneous
> > > > > statements, seemingly based
> > > > > more on ideological (or perhaps political)
> > > > > orientations towards language
> > > > > than on any educational linguistic research.
> > > > > Interestingly, Piscopo seems to
> > > > > use bilingual education's failure as support for
> > > an
> > > > > English-Only law (even
> > > > > though other anti-bilingual education advocates
> > > like
> > > > > Rosalie Porter are
> > > > > quick to disassociate with the English-Only
> > > camp).
> > > > >
> > > > > This seems like an opportunity for those who are
> > > > > interested to engage a
> > > > > policitician who has burgeoning interests in
> > > > > spearheading English-Only
> > > > > legislation and seems to have bilingual
> > > education on
> > > > > his radar. So, I am
> > > > > willing to compile and synthesize any letters
> > > sent
> > > > > to me which I will then
> > > > > send to John Piscopo. I'm imagining a polite and
> > > > > reasonably brief letter,
> > > > > quickly outlining the benefits of bilingual
> > > > > education. Letters from
> > > > > Connecticut people (Connecticutians?) are
> > > > > encouraged. Who knows how he'll
> > > > > respond - my bet is a very vague, meaningless
> > > form
> > > > > letter will arrive long
> > > > > after I forget who John Piscopo is. But, who
> > > knows?
> > > > > -David
> > > > >
> > > > > >From: "Harold F. Schiffman"
> > > > > <haroldfs at ccat.sas.upenn.edu>
> > > > > >Reply-To: lgpolicy-list at ccat.sas.upenn.edu
> > > > > >To: Language Policy-List
> > > > > <lgpolicy-list at ccat.sas.upenn.edu>
> > > > > >Subject: Bill to make English official language
> > > of
> > > > > Connecticut Fails
> > > > > >Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:38:32 -0500 (EST)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >02/18/2005 Thomaston Express
> > > > > >Piscopo's quest for English language takes hit
> > > > > >KARSTEN STRAUSS , Special to The Express
> > > > > >
> > > > > >THOMASTON - A hearing for Rep. John Piscopo's,
> > > > > R-76, bill to make English
> > > > > >the official language of Connecticut has been
> > > > > denied by the Government
> > > > > >Administration and Elections Committee.
> > > Piscopo
> > > > > said he has introduced
> > > > > >the bill nine times before and has only
> > > received
> > > > > one hearing in the late
> > > > > >1990s, when the legislation came under fire and
> > > was
> > > > > not sent to the House
> > > > > >for a vote.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >"I was hoping for a public hearing this year
> > > out of
> > > > > colleague courtesy,"
> > > > > >Piscopo said. "But it doesn't look like its
> > > going
> > > > > to happen." Piscopo said
> > > > > >that opposition to the bill comes from those
> > > who
> > > > > feel it is mean-spirited,
> > > > > >divisive and even racist - something that he
> > > > > strongly denies. Piscopo also
> > > > > >said there are those who wish to bar
> > > legislation
> > > > > that has economic
> > > > > >interests at stake.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >"There's an entrenched bureaucracy in the state
> > > > > that makes a living off of
> > > > > >printing and education, and other agencies that
> > > are
> > > > > entrenched in
> > > > > >multilingual endeavors," he said. The bill,
> > > which
> > > > > according to Piscopo is
> > > > > >largely symbolic, would declare English as the
> > > > > state's official language.
> > > > > >As far as changes to the way the state or
> > > > > educational curriculum is run in
> > > > > >Connecticut, Piscopo said that driver's
> > > licenses,
> > > > > voting ballots and voter
> > > > > >registration documents would be printed only in
> > > > > English.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >"We want to state that Connecticut is a state
> > > with
> > > > > English as the official
> > > > > >language so that everybody can assimilate and
> > > learn
> > > > > this universal
> > > > > >language of commerce and to get ahead faster,"
> > > he
> > > > > said. Piscopo said that
> > > > > >bilingual education, once thought to benefit
> > > > > children raised to speak
> > > > > >foreign languages, is in fact holding those
> > > > > children back.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >"You do not help a non-English speaking student
> > > by
> > > > > keeping them at least
> > > > > >three years in their native tongue," Piscopo
> > > said.
> > > > > "The best way we can
> > > > > >help someone that does not speak English that
> > > comes
> > > > > to this country and
> > > > > >this state is to teach them English as quickly
> > > as
> > > > > possible through English
> > > > > >immersion, or just English as a second
> > > language,
> > > > > not teach them in their
> > > > > >native tongue." Piscopo says he has backing
> > > from
> > > > > Hispanic mothers who
> > > > > >would like to see their children assimilate
> > > more
> > > > > completely into the
> > > > > >English-speaking curriculum.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >"We need these kids to have an equal
> > > opportunity to
> > > > > go through the process
> > > > > >of transition from one culture, one language to
> > > > > another one," said
> > > > > >Torrington Board of Education member Edgar
> > > > > Trinidad, who disagrees
> > > > > >strongly with Piscopo's views on bilingual
> > > > > education. "I know many great
> > > > > >professionals who have been in bilingual
> > > > > education." "I don't know of what
> > > > > >world this gentleman is," Trinidad said of
> > > Piscopo.
> > > > >  "Maybe he doesn't
> > > > > >have kids in school. It's proven that bilingual
> > > > > education is going to help
> > > > > >the kid enjoy the concept of inclusion."
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Trinidad said that some aspects of bilingual
> > > > > education need to be
> > > > > >addressed, but not eliminated. Rep. Livvy
> > > Floren,
> > > > > R-149, ranking member on
> > > > > >the Government Administration and Elections
> > > > > Committee said Piscopo's
> > > > > >proposed bill was not given a hearing because
> > > the
> > > > > commission's calendar
> > > > > >for this year was too full, not because of the
> > > > > merits of the bill or any
> > > > > >ideological opposition.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >"It was just a matter of time and priorities,
> > > and
> > > > > this just wasn't the
> > > > > >year," Floren said. "Probably next year, when
> > > we
> > > > > have a little bit less on
> > > > > >our docket, we'll be able to get to it again."
> > > > > Piscopo said he will be
> > > > > >looking for an opportunity to submit the bill
> > > as an
> > > > > amendment in the House
> > > > > >of Representatives.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >http://www.zwire.com/site/printerFriendly.cfm?
> brd=1644&dept_id=10660&newsid=13970250
>